Bart, thanks for catching this and sorry for the oversight. I went back through our emails and we did have considerable discussion about this topic around 2/3 April 2018, and we agreed to drop the language that requires the ccNSO and GNSO to approve any changes to SLAs. I’ve made some changes to 4.3.10 in an attempt to capture our decision to drop that requirement, which is provided below for ease of reference and the yellow highlighted pieces indicate the new text. Given it is now into Bart’s evening, I think it makes sense to aim to have the documents sent to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils tomorrow, Tuesday 19 June 2018. So if you have any comments please make them in the next 12 hours, reaffirming comments supporting the final version of the Report and Charter would also be welcome. Thanks Donna 4.3.10 Review or change to service level targets. The CSC informed the RT that while the Charter allows for the CSC or the IFO to request a review or change to the service level targets, it would be helpful for the Charter to include a reference to the process by which this can be done. The CSC also suggested that the reference to the review or change to service levels would be better placed under the Scope of Responsibilities section rather than the Review Section. The RT agrees on both counts. The CSC also noted that the service levels are defined in the IANA Naming Function Contract and that separate to the CSC Charter Review the CSC, in cooperation with PTI and ICANN, have been developing procedures to enable timely amendments to the service levels that fall into a number of defined categories, for example a new service level required as the result of a new introduced service, a change to a service level considered non-material that would ensure satisfactory performance, or the removal of a service level that is obsolete. The Charter calls for proposed changes to service levels to be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO; however, the RT no longer considers this necessary as any proposed changes to the SLAs, in accordance with the Amended Charter, will only become effective after informing the direct customers through the ccNSO Council and the RySG. From: Bart Boswinkel [mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 3:21 AM To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; H M Boyle <hm.boyle@icloud.com>; CSC-review@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] 18 June 2018: revised final report and charter Donna, all, I will forward the emails and final report as suggested later today. However please note there is still a discrepancy between the text of section 4.3.11 and the text in the charter regarding the service level changes The text in 4.3.10 Any proposed changes to service levels through the simplified process must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO. This general requirement is not reflected in the proposed simplified process, not in the proposed charter. The text from the proposed charter ( Scope of responsibilities): The CSC, in consultation with the IANA Functions Operator, will develop procedures for changing service level/s including the removal of existing service levels or the inclusion of new service levels. These procedures will be commensurate with the type of the service level change being proposed. Informing the registry operators about proposed changes shall always be required; however, the type of service level change will determine whether it is necessary to conduct a community-wide consultation. The procedures may be updated from time to time, and will only become effective after publication of the process on the CSC webpage, and after informing the ccNSO Council and RySG, the direct customers. Please advise before I send off the final document. Kind regards, Bart From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Date: Monday 18 June 2018 at 01:15 To: H M Boyle <hm.boyle@icloud.com<mailto:hm.boyle@icloud.com>>, "CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>" <CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, "CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>" <CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] 18 June 2018: revised final report and charter Hi All I’ve reviewed the Final Report and Amended Charter after receiving Martin’s comments, and I’ve accepted most if not all of the suggested changes. I’ve reworded the section on 5.3 requesting the Gap Analysis, noting that the RT did not have an opportunity to consider the comment but believes it is worthy of follow-up by ICANN’s CTO and are recommending that this be done by the ccNSO. I think there was some double-up in Annex A with a copy of the Amended Charter and a Comparison of the Original with the Amended Charter, so I’ve deleted the Amended Character that is provided in Section 6. And just left the comparison. In terms of what’s next, I propose the following emails be sent to the ccNSO and GNSO Council Chairs by Bart on behalf of the CSC Review Team: Message to the GNSO Council Dear Heather Please find attached a copy of the Final Report of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Charter Review prepared by the CSC Charter Review Team, along with a standalone version of the Proposed Amended CSC Charter. In accordance with the CSC Charter and the ICANN bylaws, any recommended changes to the CSC Charter as a result of the CSC Charter review are to be ratified by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils. Therefore the CSC Review Team seeks consideration of the Proposed Amended Charter by the GNSO Council with a view to having the recommended changes ratified. We also call your attention to a recommendation in the Final Report requesting that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils conduct an analysis of the requirements of the IANA Naming Function Review and the CSC Effectiveness Review with a view to creating synergies and avoiding overlap. We understand that some progress has been made in this regard and we thank the Council for their prompt attention to this matter. Regards CSC Review Team Message to the ccNSO Council Dear Katrina Please find attached a copy of the Final Report of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Charter Review prepared by the CSC Charter Review Team, along with a standalone version of the Proposed Amended CSC Charter. In accordance with the CSC Charter and the ICANN bylaws, any recommended changes to the CSC Charter as a result of the CSC Charter review are to be ratified by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils. Therefore the CSC Review Team seeks consideration of the Proposed Amended Charter by the GNSO Council with a view to having the recommended changes ratified. We also call your attention to a recommendation in the Final Report requesting that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils conduct an analysis of the requirements of the IANA Naming Function Review and the CSC Effectiveness Review with a view to creating synergies and avoiding overlap. We understand that some progress has been made in this regard and we thank the Council for their prompt attention to this matter. In addition, the report also recommends that the ccNSO Council request that the ICANN’s CTO consider a request made by DENIC during the public comment period of our Initial Report to carry out a gap analysis of all IANA Naming Function related topics. Regards CSC Review Team Keith and I have submitted a motion to the GNSO Council to ratify the Amended Charter. Thanks everyone, almost there. Donna From: H M Boyle [mailto:hm.boyle@icloud.com] Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 10:58 PM To: CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] 14 June 2018: revised final report and charter It might have helped to say that my changes were to 4.3.4, 4.3.11 & 5.3 Martin Boyle Sent from my iPhone On 17 Jun 2018, at 00:11, Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com<mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>> wrote: Hi Bart, All, In response to Bart’s question below, I have no problems with deletion of the text. If ccNSO or GNSO do not agree the change, they can always object and (in the worst case) sack their nominees! From a quick scan of the text, I have made some minor amendments and some comments in the attached: the inline amendments try to correct the English (as seen from the UK!) and comments suggest alternative words that I think might be clearer. Two additional comments: 1. Can I suggest that the formatting amendments in Annex A are all accepted? 2. Pages 32 & 33 appear to have unnecessary page breaks: supress? Hope this helps Martin From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org<mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 15 June 2018 17:29 To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Cc: H M Boyle <hm.boyle@icloud.com<mailto:hm.boyle@icloud.com>> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] 14 June 2018: revised final report and charter Dear all, Please find included update version of the Final report and clean version Please note following: Section 4.3.10 Final; sentence: Should there be any proposed changes to service levels through the simplified process, these must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO. This is a sentence that is causing confusion: Do you suggest that any change to the Service levels need to be approved by the ccNSO And GNSO? Issue and confusion: This is not aligned with the text of the proposed charter, and ultimately does not change anything to the mechanism to date only adds confusion (including confusion with staff). Suggested change: delete the sentence The DENIC note: Following Donna’s and Martin’s suggestion it is now in both in section 3 and section 5. Suggedtion is to include it only in Section 5 per discussion on the call. I have also changed the text slightly to clarify what is meant with the GAP. Proposed text 5.3 Potential Gap community coverage of all IANA-Naming Function related topics From one contribution to the public comment period (DENIC), the RT recognises that although number of different bodies (SOs and ACs, CSC, RZERC) look at various and different aspects of the IANA Naming Functions some issues, which are not strictly operational but within PTI’s remit, are not within scope of any of the bodies identified. Examples that were mentioned are KSK rollover, the choice of technical DNSSEC parameters, "technical checks" applied by both the IFO and the RZM, as well as proposed changes to the authentication and authorization model for root zone changes). The contributor suggested to conduct a Gap-Analysis to identify those issues. While this comment is outside the scope of the Charter Review, the RT does believe that there would be value in conducting the gap analysis as suggested, and as such recommends that the ccNSO Council encourages ICANN’s CTO to respond to this suggestion. Also included is the comparison of the updated proposed charter and the original charter (only in clean version of the document) Kind regards, Bart From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org<mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Austin, Donna via CSC-Review" <CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Reply-To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Date: Friday 15 June 2018 at 03:31 To: "CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>" <CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Cc: H M Boyle <hm.boyle@icloud.com<mailto:hm.boyle@icloud.com>> Subject: [CSC-Review] 14 June 2018: revised final report and charter All I managed to get access to the Martin’s version of the document and I’ve made some changes. Two are different from what we agreed yesterday. Re the Council comment encouraging that the appointments taken into consideration the WS2 recommendations. I’ve stayed with the notion that we would not change the Charter, but I’ve suggested that in the event the WS2 recommendations are accepted, that the appointing organisations take the recommendations into account in their selection processes. Re the DENIC comment about a gap analysis I’ve suggested that the ccNSO should encourage ICANN’s CTO to respond to the suggestion. I don’t think there is a role in this case for the GNSO Council and it seems to sit better as an action item for the ccNSO. Martin, I think I agreed with all your comments. It would be great to get this wrapped up tomorrow. Thanks everyone Donna <Draft Final Report CSC Charter RT version 15 June 2018 version 3 Clean + MB.docx>